King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willelmi d

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willelmi d

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jul 2007 02:24:06

Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently came across a new kinsman of King John of England, namely
Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre. Enkelinus Wiillelmi is called
"cognato nostro" [our kinsman] by King John in an charter which dates
from early in his reign [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1
(1895): 393]. While the actual charter is undated, it can be readily
dated as being circa 1203-1204, when a certain Simon was both Provost
of Beverley and Archdeacon of Wells. Simon became Bishop of
Chichester in 1204.

The original charter was confirmed in 1252 by King John's son and
heir, King Henry III, in favor of Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre, son
of the said Enkelinus. Presumably Enkelius the elder was from
Gascony, as King Henry III issued a mandate that the seneschal and
bailiffs of Gascony read and observe the confirmation of the original
charter.

Presumably Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre senior or his son of the
same name is the person as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la Sparre who is named
in a royal mandate found in Renouard, Rôles Gascons, 4 (1962): 453.
If anyone has further particulars regarding the de la Sparre family,
I'd appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup. I assume King
John is related to Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre through his mother,
Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jul 2007 06:04:55

On Jul 25, 11:24 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently came across a new kinsman of King John of England, namely
Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre. Enkelinus Wiillelmi is called
"cognato nostro" [our kinsman] by King John in an charter which dates
from early in his reign [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1
(1895): 393]. While the actual charter is undated, it can be readily
dated as being circa 1203-1204, when a certain Simon was both Provost
of Beverley and Archdeacon of Wells. Simon became Bishop of
Chichester in 1204.

A mention of a medieval person published in 1895 cannot very well be
called "new" in 2007. It may be new to you, but that is all.

Ayquem-Guilhem II, lord of Lesparre died ca 1206/07. His relationship
to King John is not known - his father was Senebrun I of Lesparre, son
of the first Ayquem-Guilhem whose parentage and wife are not recorded.
Senebrun I's wife was named Alpais, but her family is unknown.

The original charter was confirmed in 1252 by King John's son and
heir, King Henry III, in favor of Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre, son
of the said Enkelinus. Presumably Enkelius the elder was from
Gascony, as King Henry III issued a mandate that the seneschal and
bailiffs of Gascony read and observe the confirmation of the original
charter.

Presumably Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre senior or his son of the
same name is the person as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la Sparre who is named
in a royal mandate found in Renouard, Rôles Gascons, 4 (1962): 453.

He didn't ahve a son of the same name - his successor was his son
Senebrun II, who was father of Ayquelm-Guilhem III (died after 4 May
1256).

If anyone has further particulars regarding the de la Sparre family,
I'd appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup. I assume King
John is related to Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre through his mother,
Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Almost certainly, but we don't have enough information about his
ancestry to pin this down.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jul 2007 08:42:01

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1185326646.414850.318700@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently came across a new kinsman of King John of England,
namely Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre. Enkelinus Wiillelmi
is called "cognato nostro" [our kinsman] by King John in an
charter which dates from early in his reign [Reference: Calendar
of Charter Rolls, 1 (1895): 393]. While the actual charter is
undated, it can be readily dated as being circa 1203-1204, when
a certain Simon was both Provost of Beverley and Archdeacon
of Wells. Simon became Bishop of Chichester in 1204.

Your floundering with dates is going from very bad to even worse: the
charter is not undated as you suppose, it is in fact clearly dated 3
December 1202.

NB The last words, immediately following the attestation of Simon that you
noted, are "tertio die Decembris anno regni nostri quarto". I don't know how
anyone interested in the document could overlook this.

Moreover the first volume of _Calendar of the Charter Rolls_ containing it
was published in 1903, not 1895.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jul 2007 09:18:29

On Jul 25, 9:42 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1185326646.414850.318700@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently came across a new kinsman of King John of England,
namely Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre. Enkelinus Wiillelmi
is called "cognato nostro" [our kinsman] by King John in an
charter which dates from early in his reign [Reference: Calendar
of Charter Rolls, 1 (1895): 393]. While the actual charter is
undated, it can be readily dated as being circa 1203-1204, when
a certain Simon was both Provost of Beverley and Archdeacon
of Wells. Simon became Bishop of Chichester in 1204.

Your floundering with dates is going from very bad to even worse: the
charter is not undated as you suppose, it is in fact clearly dated 3
December 1202.

NB The last words, immediately following the attestation of Simon that you
noted, are "tertio die Decembris anno regni nostri quarto". I don't know how
anyone interested in the document could overlook this.

Moreover the first volume of _Calendar of the Charter Rolls_ containing it
was published in 1903, not 1895.

Peter Stewart

And now we await deletion of the original post to be replaced by a
"Revised" sanitised post with errors deleted and incorporating, with
no accreditation, Peter Stewart's corrections!

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 jul 2007 15:10:22

And now we await deletion of the original post to be replaced by a
"Revised" sanitised post with errors deleted and incorporating, with
no accreditation, Peter Stewart's corrections!

Of course, it will still be more original than all your silly,
repetitious cheerleading for dear, infallible Peter Stewart ...

Douglas Richardson

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jul 2007 16:42:48

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my original post, I suggested that the name Enkelinus Willelmi was
the same name (but not the same person) as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la
Sparre who is named
in a royal mandate found in Renouard, Rôles Gascons, 4 (1962): 453.
I've since found several references to this same name combination in
the published Patent Rolls and in the published Gascon Register A, by
Cuttino:

Aquelin Willelmi de Sparra dated 1246

Aqueenwill del Sparre dated 1242

Kenguil de Sparre dated 1242

Ayquelmum Guillelmi lord of the castle of Sparre 1318-1319

Ayquelmus Guilelmi 1318-1319

Ayquelmum Guillelmi lord of Sparra 1318-1319

It would appear that this family were lords of the castle of Lesparre,
which is located in Gironde in Aquitaine. This place was subsequently
held by Pierre de Montferrand (died 1454), husband of Mary of Bedford,
the illegitimate granddaughter of King Henry IV of England, and later
by Henry Holand, Knt. (died 1475), Duke of Exeter, Admiral of England
[Reference: Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jul 2007 17:50:46

(snip of extraneous cross-post)

On 25 Jul., 16:42, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my original post, I suggested that the name Enkelinus Willelmi was
the same name (but not the same person) as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la
Sparre

Dear Douglas

Actually, in your original post of 02:24 25 July 2007 you did exactly
the opposite:

"Presumably Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre senior or his son of the
same name is the person as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la Sparre".

Why pretend you said the opposite? Even Horace Round changed his mind
sometimes. Continually saying that black is white has the effect of
eroding confidence in your statements, which is a shame.

Kind regards, Michael

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 jul 2007 00:51:46

On Jul 26, 12:10 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And now we await deletion of the original post to be replaced by a
"Revised" sanitised post with errors deleted and incorporating, with
no accreditation, Peter Stewart's corrections!

Of course, it will still be more original than all your silly,
repetitious cheerleading for dear, infallible Peter Stewart ...

Original my foot - and of course David mentioned my name incidentally,
while the only durect "cheerleading" in this thread is yours for
Richardson, by the obtuse insistence that there is some merit in his
incompetent post; and, true to form, you have hit on the most obvious
flaw in it, claiming information as "new" that has been on the
published record for more than a century.

The only way to contribute "original" research is by doing it in the
first place, just as "original" ideas come only by applying fresh
thought to known evidence or established circumstantial premises - not
by asserting that other people's discoveries are your own simply
because you didn't know of them before.

Richardson demonstrates here consistently that when he ventures into
primary sources without the guidance of some (usually undisclosed)
secondary material, he is out of his depth. He can't even get the
dates right, or on this occasion realise that a date was actually
given in the plainest terms.

Cheering from the sidelines will not obscure his fundamental ignorance
of medieval sources and of deductive reasoning. It would be more
collegial and friendly to encourage him off-list to educate himself
first, rather than daily offering up his "trained and professional"
lack of basic skills, comprehension and logic for public ridicule.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 26 jul 2007 01:17:30

Ugh. I thought this boring old longwinded fool had gone away for
good.

And now we await deletion of the original post to be replaced by a
"Revised" sanitised post with errors deleted and incorporating, with
no accreditation, Peter Stewart's corrections!

Of course, it will still be more original than all your silly,
repetitious cheerleading for dear, infallible Peter Stewart ...

Original my foot - and of course David mentioned my name incidentally,
while the only durect "cheerleading" in this thread is yours for
Richardson, by the obtuse insistence that there is some merit in his
incompetent post; and, true to form, you have hit on the most obvious
flaw in it, claiming information as "new" that has been on the
published record for more than a century.

The only way to contribute "original" research is by doing it in the
first place, just as "original" ideas come only by applying fresh
thought to known evidence or established circumstantial premises - not
by asserting that other people's discoveries are your own simply
because you didn't know of them before.

Richardson demonstrates here consistently that when he ventures into
primary sources without the guidance of some (usually undisclosed)
secondary material, he is out of his depth. He can't even get the
dates right, or on this occasion realise that a date was actually
given in the plainest terms.

Cheering from the sidelines will not obscure his fundamental ignorance
of medieval sources and of deductive reasoning. It would be more
collegial and friendly to encourage him off-list to educate himself
first, rather than daily offering up his "trained and professional"
lack of basic skills, comprehension and logic for public ridicule.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 jul 2007 01:57:00

On Jul 26, 10:17 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ugh. I thought this boring old longwinded fool had gone away for
good.

You couldn't hope to fool even yourself and Richardson with such a
crude, witless and evasive falsehood - you posted some sour grapes
about a response to my earlier message, so that my continued presence
can hardly come as a surprise if you have a mind capable of
registering one in the first place.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 26 jul 2007 14:41:52

You couldn't hope to fool even yourself and Richardson with such a
crude, witless and evasive falsehood - you posted some sour grapes
about a response to my earlier message, so that my continued presence
can hardly come as a surprise if you have a mind capable of
registering one in the first place.

Peter Stewart

Blah blah blah blah. Try shutting up for a minute or two, please.

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 jul 2007 23:20:37

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185457312.547763.278600@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You couldn't hope to fool even yourself and Richardson with such a
crude, witless and evasive falsehood - you posted some sour grapes
about a response to my earlier message, so that my continued presence
can hardly come as a surprise if you have a mind capable of
registering one in the first place.

Peter Stewart

Blah blah blah blah. Try shutting up for a minute or two, please.

Utterly pathetic & juvenile - yesterday you were pretending to think I had
gone away, now you are pretending to feel that I sound off constantly.

Wrong on both counts, obviously. If you can't deal with criticism, and
address it squarely, why not try removing yourself from the suffering of SGM
as promised earlier?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 27 jul 2007 00:16:13

Utterly pathetic & juvenile - yesterday you were pretending to think I had
gone away, now you are pretending to feel that I sound off constantly.

I don't know why you imagine people are going to be consistent just
for your benefit (consistency being the hobgobblin of ... well, ...
what passes for Peter's mind). It takes no talent to be consistent.
Dull people manage it without a thought.

Wrong on both counts, obviously. If you can't deal with criticism, and
address it squarely, why not try removing yourself from the suffering of SGM
as promised earlier?

Someone says something in a flip moment and--forever after--you think
it's something they seriously meant? Why don't you take some time off
yourself, get around to that great unfinished (*unbegun*, I suspect,
alas) genealogical work on the Carolingians ... er Merovingians ... er
whatever. Yawn.

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 jul 2007 00:52:27

On Jul 27, 9:16 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Utterly pathetic & juvenile - yesterday you were pretending to think I had
gone away, now you are pretending to feel that I sound off constantly.

I don't know why you imagine people are going to be consistent just
for your benefit (consistency being the hobgobblin of ... well, ...
what passes for Peter's mind). It takes no talent to be consistent.
Dull people manage it without a thought.

Wrong on both counts, obviously. If you can't deal with criticism, and
address it squarely, why not try removing yourself from the suffering of SGM
as promised earlier?

Someone says something in a flip moment and--forever after--you think
it's something they seriously meant? Why don't you take some time off
yourself, get around to that great unfinished (*unbegun*, I suspect,
alas) genealogical work on the Carolingians ... er Merovingians ... er
whatever. Yawn.

This is more idiocy - no wonder that Richardson's chief (almost only)
support here comes from such a low character with such a spoiled
intelligence.

Contradicting your own falsehoods is not a sign of cleverness,
originality or any other merit. It is just cloddish dishonesty, and
boring.

You only seem to have "flip" moments, as the specious flipping coin
that is John Brandon never settles, and much less does it provide any
real value.

Quite obviously I have researched the Carolingians to some extent, or
I could not have posted in detail about virtually every member of this
family to be discussed on SGM. I have never represented my work on any
family - or on anything apart from genealogy for that matter - as
"great", in quality as opposed to mere quantity, nor I have
represented myself as undertaking dedicated research on the
Merovingians.

However, the genealogies of both families are genuinely medieval,
unlike the early modern colonial immigrants that are your usual
subject matter when not griping and rattle-bagging to no purpose
whatsoever.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jul 2007 01:14:53

Rattle-Bagging?

Lord save us from same.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1185493947.895413.17880@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 27, 9:16 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Utterly pathetic & juvenile - yesterday you were pretending to think I
had gone away, now you are pretending to feel that I sound off
constantly.

I don't know why you imagine people are going to be consistent just
for your benefit (consistency being the hobgobblin of ... well, ...
what passes for Peter's mind). It takes no talent to be consistent.
Dull people manage it without a thought.

Wrong on both counts, obviously. If you can't deal with criticism, and
address it squarely, why not try removing yourself from the suffering
of SGM as promised earlier?

Someone says something in a flip moment and--forever after--you think
it's something they seriously meant? Why don't you take some time off
yourself, get around to that great unfinished (*unbegun*, I suspect,
alas) genealogical work on the Carolingians ... er Merovingians ... er
whatever. Yawn.

This is more idiocy - no wonder that Richardson's chief (almost only)
support here comes from such a low character with such a spoiled
intelligence.

Contradicting your own falsehoods is not a sign of cleverness,
originality or any other merit. It is just cloddish dishonesty, and
boring.

You only seem to have "flip" moments, as the specious flipping coin
that is John Brandon never settles, and much less does it provide any
real value.

Quite obviously I have researched the Carolingians to some extent, or
I could not have posted in detail about virtually every member of this
family to be discussed on SGM. I have never represented my work on any
family - or on anything apart from genealogy for that matter - as
"great", in quality as opposed to mere quantity, nor I have
represented myself as undertaking dedicated research on the
Merovingians.

However, the genealogies of both families are genuinely medieval,
unlike the early modern colonial immigrants that are your usual
subject matter when not griping and rattle-bagging to no purpose
whatsoever.

Peter Stewart

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 27 jul 2007 02:20:02

Hear bloody hear. John continues to behave like a spoilt brat. We should
either send him to Coventry or to Brat Camp. Either would do, as long as he
stays there till he grows up.

Merilyn Pedrick





-------Original Message-------



From: Peter Stewart

Date: 07/27/07 07:55:36

To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman,Enkelinus Willelmi de la
Sparre



"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1185457312.547763.278600@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

You couldn't hope to fool even yourself and Richardson with such a

crude, witless and evasive falsehood - you posted some sour grapes

about a response to my earlier message, so that my continued presence

can hardly come as a surprise if you have a mind capable of

registering one in the first place.



Peter Stewart



Blah blah blah blah. Try shutting up for a minute or two, please.



Utterly pathetic & juvenile - yesterday you were pretending to think I had

gone away, now you are pretending to feel that I sound off constantly.



Wrong on both counts, obviously. If you can't deal with criticism, and

address it squarely, why not try removing yourself from the suffering of SGM

as promised earlier?



Peter Stewart







-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 jul 2007 03:47:46

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:eOaqi.174$in6.1542@eagle.america.net...
Rattle-Bagging?

Lord save us from same.

Yes indeed - a rattle bag is a sack filled with cracked pots & pans and
other tinker's odds-and-ends, that is shaken to make unpleasant noise for
herding sheep & cattle or for scaring off birds & vermin. Brandon could
probably make a useful career beyond making a nuisance here, by hiring
himself to a farmer for the same purposes.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 27 jul 2007 14:54:37

Hear bloody hear. John continues to behave like a spoilt brat. We should
either send him to Coventry or to Brat Camp. Either would do, as long as he
stays there till he grows up.

Ah, poor dim Merilyn, with all her profound insights into ...
precisely nothing.

She's as bad as David from Carcassone in her blind, cliche-riddled
support for Stewart.

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 27 jul 2007 15:48:55

This is more idiocy - no wonder that Richardson's chief (almost only)
support here comes from such a low character with such a spoiled
intelligence.

Would a "spoiled intelligence" (whatever that is) really be capable of
demonstrating the ancient gentry ancestry of Charles Willing of
Philadelphia and Dorothea Scott Gotherson Hogben of Long Island, both
of which I've done in just the past month? Not to mention pointing
out serious doubts about the Whitney line as just published in TAG
(who proofread that one??).

However, the genealogies of both families are genuinely medieval,
unlike the early modern colonial immigrants that are your usual
subject matter when not griping and rattle-bagging to no purpose
whatsoever.

One has to have the early modern colonial gateways to get back to the
era of pure bliss and light, ie the "genuinely medieval." Not
everyone can have Charlotte, Countess of Cumberland as a g-g-g
grandmother. Some of us have to really work on the intermediate
steps. I see nothing wrong with that.

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jul 2007 16:26:02

On Jul 27, 3:54 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hear bloody hear. John continues to behave like a spoilt brat. We should
either send him to Coventry or to Brat Camp. Either would do, as long as he
stays there till he grows up.

Ah, poor dim Merilyn, with all her profound insights into ...
precisely nothing.

She's as bad as David from Carcassone in her blind, cliche-riddled
support for Stewart.

I have mentioned "Peter" or "Peter Stewart" four times, all of which
were incidental to the point of my message. Hardly "blind, cliché-
riddled support" - in any case no self respecting Englishman would
dare to be seen supporting an Australian in public!

Your constant lick-spittling defence of DR is another matter though

Carcassone is spelt Carcassonne - (who proofread that one??).

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 27 jul 2007 16:41:53

Carcassone is spelt Carcassonne - (who proofread that one??).

Big freaking deal.

Your genealogical contributions here have been slight (_very_ slight),
as anybody can tell who simply looks in the archives (a whopping total
of 16 messages in soc.gen.medieval, and one fourth of those mention
dear dear Peter). And you have the gall to act as though DR's'
thousands upon thousands of contributions are totally worthless. Some
nerve. Some whacked-out perspective.

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 jul 2007 00:41:39

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185547735.868848.252470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
This is more idiocy - no wonder that Richardson's chief (almost only)
support here comes from such a low character with such a spoiled
intelligence.

Would a "spoiled intelligence" (whatever that is) really be capable of
demonstrating the ancient gentry ancestry of Charles Willing of
Philadelphia and Dorothea Scott Gotherson Hogben of Long Island, both
of which I've done in just the past month? Not to mention pointing
out serious doubts about the Whitney line as just published in TAG
(who proofread that one??).

Yes of course - why ever not? Assuming you know what is meant by
intelligence, a spoiled example is one that has gone bad, just like spoiled
fruit that can still have some edible parts. The compulsion to quibble over
every pointless incomprehension that occurs to your spoiled mind is a
further symptom of the trouble.

However, the genealogies of both families are genuinely medieval,
unlike the early modern colonial immigrants that are your usual
subject matter when not griping and rattle-bagging to no purpose
whatsoever.

One has to have the early modern colonial gateways to get back to the
era of pure bliss and light, ie the "genuinely medieval." Not
everyone can have Charlotte, Countess of Cumberland as a g-g-g
grandmother. Some of us have to really work on the intermediate
steps. I see nothing wrong with that.

Nor do I, except that you frequently abuse the purpose of this newsgroup for
medieval genealogy by pursuing it here. Everyone has intermediate ancestry,
obviously, that will be the bulk of what is known for many participants, and
the links may be of interest on topic occasionally, but not all feel
licensed to post irrelevant details or speculations in this forum knowing
that people come for different reasons.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 jul 2007 00:49:25

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185550913.248685.254830@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Carcassone is spelt Carcassonne - (who proofread that one??).

Big freaking deal.

Your genealogical contributions here have been slight (_very_ slight),
as anybody can tell who simply looks in the archives (a whopping total
of 16 messages in soc.gen.medieval, and one fourth of those mention
dear dear Peter). And you have the gall to act as though DR's'
thousands upon thousands of contributions are totally worthless. Some
nerve. Some whacked-out perspective.

Richardson has posted vastly - incalculably - more misinformation here than
anyone else, through not bothering to master his subject before proclaiming
himself an expert in it. That is a whacked-out misperception, indeed, that
is more readily explained as pathological narcissism in the individual
concerned than it can be as blindly indulgent admiration from others.

But Brandon's compulsive & unhinged rudeness to Merilyn shows neatly what I
meant by a "spoiled" intelligence: he has no objective reason left in part
of his brain.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 jul 2007 15:40:47

Yes of course - why ever not? Assuming you know what is meant by
intelligence, a spoiled example is one that has gone bad, just like spoiled
fruit that can still have some edible parts. The compulsion to quibble over
every pointless incomprehension that occurs to your spoiled mind is a
further symptom of the trouble.

Says you ... who happens to know next to nothing about me. The real
subtext of what you're saying is that anyone who is not obsequious to
yourself and clique of obnoxious Aussies is somehow degenerate or
depraved. What a silly herd mentality you lot have.

Nor do I, except that you frequently abuse the purpose of this newsgroup for
medieval genealogy by pursuing it here. Everyone has intermediate ancestry,
obviously, that will be the bulk of what is known for many participants, and
the links may be of interest on topic occasionally, but not all feel
licensed to post irrelevant details or speculations in this forum knowing
that people come for different reasons.

Well, perhaps they should. It's all good, in my view. Feeling
superior because others are off-topic does not necessarily dissuade
those who are off-topic.

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 jul 2007 15:50:26

But Brandon's compulsive & unhinged rudeness to Merilyn shows neatly what I
meant by a "spoiled" intelligence: he has no objective reason left in part
of his brain.

Bold assertion from someone permanently brain-damaged in a motorcyle
accident ...

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 jul 2007 00:57:36

On Jul 31, 12:40 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes of course - why ever not? Assuming you know what is meant by
intelligence, a spoiled example is one that has gone bad, just like spoiled
fruit that can still have some edible parts. The compulsion to quibble over
every pointless incomprehension that occurs to your spoiled mind is a
further symptom of the trouble.

Says you ... who happens to know next to nothing about me.

Um, we all know rather too much about you - if you imagine you can
post continually here without revelealing the state of your mental
faculties, that is in itself another indicator of their degradation.

The real subtext of what you're saying is that anyone who is not
obsequious to yourself and clique of obnoxious Aussies is somehow
degenerate or depraved. What a silly herd mentality you lot have.

This is total rubbish, no-one has been "obsequious" towards me or
anyone else here except Richardson. I have never attacked anyone
simply for disagreeing with me - I do this often enough myself - but
rather for the lack of commonsense, rationality or integrity in their
disagreement.

Nor do I, except that you frequently abuse the purpose of this newsgroup for
medieval genealogy by pursuing it here. Everyone has intermediate ancestry,
obviously, that will be the bulk of what is known for many participants, and
the links may be of interest on topic occasionally, but not all feel
licensed to post irrelevant details or speculations in this forum knowing
that people come for different reasons.

Well, perhaps they should. It's all good, in my view. Feeling
superior because others are off-topic does not necessarily dissuade
those who are off-topic.

A sense of "superiority" is again your projection, not my idea at all
- I am talking only about the appropriateness of subject matter in
this forum, not the quality of analysis applied to it. I don't read
through your off-topic posts about colonial immigrants or your own
relatives so have no opinion about these except that they must belong,
if deserving of public exposure in the first place, somewhere else.

Occasional off-topic irruptions don't bother me. I know how to delete
or ignore messages, after all. But your premeditated cookoo-in-the-
nest approach to the SGM newsgroup to feed your own interests is an
abuse of its proper, stated purpose.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 jul 2007 01:02:00

On Jul 31, 12:50 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But Brandon's compulsive & unhinged rudeness to Merilyn shows neatly what I
meant by a "spoiled" intelligence: he has no objective reason left in part
of his brain.

Bold assertion from someone permanently brain-damaged in a motorcyle
accident ...

If you have any specific criticism of my mental powers, you are free
to state it. Generalised and evasive insinuations about a critic are
not, of course, an adequate response when you have nothing to say in
your own defense.

The acquired brain impairment of mine that so fascinates you is not a
moral failing, which your public utterances too often are.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 31 jul 2007 14:43:37

Um, we all know rather too much about you - if you imagine you can
post continually here without revelealing the state of your mental
faculties, that is in itself another indicator of their degradation.

Umm, no, you all still know next to nothing about me. I'll never
believe anything I've posted here is *revelealing* of anything more
than a small fraction of my mental faculties (and their [supposed]
degradation).

Fortunately this newsgroup is all you'll ever know of me, incomplete
and incorrect as that impression may be ...

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 jul 2007 23:29:13

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185889417.274890.184210@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Um, we all know rather too much about you - if you imagine you can
post continually here without revelealing the state of your mental
faculties, that is in itself another indicator of their degradation.

Umm, no, you all still know next to nothing about me. I'll never
believe anything I've posted here is *revelealing* of anything more
than a small fraction of my mental faculties (and their [supposed]
degradation).

I don't wish to know anything of your other activities, the point is that
like others I wish to know less of your thoughts. What you post here
consistently reveals a low self-confidence overcompensated with a
deliberately vexatious egotism & arrogance, and a very immature sense of
humour. Most unappealing. The rare flashes of intelligence only show an
unnecessary failure of the achievement you might have made in genealogy by
learning self-discipline before taking to research. Richardson's Mini-Me.

Fortunately this newsgroup is all you'll ever know of me, incomplete
and incorrect as that impression may be ...

Yes, unlike you I will never make obsessive searches of the internet to come
up with stupid misidentifications, as you did when demanding to know
personal details while absurdly refusing to accept that I am

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 jul 2007 23:48:16

Peter, why don't you untwist your knickers, tweak your nose to get the snit
out of it -- then take a hot toddy and a long nap?

You'll feel better.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZIOri.14486$4A1.3018@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185889417.274890.184210@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Um, we all know rather too much about you - if you imagine you can
post continually here without revelealing the state of your mental
faculties, that is in itself another indicator of their degradation.

Umm, no, you all still know next to nothing about me. I'll never
believe anything I've posted here is *revelealing* of anything more
than a small fraction of my mental faculties (and their [supposed]
degradation).

I don't wish to know anything of your other activities, the point is that
like others I wish to know less of your thoughts. What you post here
consistently reveals a low self-confidence overcompensated with a
deliberately vexatious egotism & arrogance, and a very immature sense of
humour. Most unappealing. The rare flashes of intelligence only show an
unnecessary failure of the achievement you might have made in genealogy by
learning self-discipline before taking to research. Richardson's Mini-Me.

Fortunately this newsgroup is all you'll ever know of me, incomplete
and incorrect as that impression may be ...

Yes, unlike you I will never make obsessive searches of the internet to
come up with stupid misidentifications, as you did when demanding to know
personal details while absurdly refusing to accept that I am

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 aug 2007 16:12:01

Yes, unlike you I will never make obsessive searches of the internet to come
up with stupid misidentifications, as you did when demanding to know
personal details while absurdly refusing to accept that I am

Peter Stewart

Well, seeing that several of us have to put up with your supposely
high-falutin' abuse on a constant basis, it *would* be nice to be able
to read some of your claimed literary criticism. Of course, it should
always be remembered that critics are usually those who cannot write
good novels or poetry of their own (the old "those who can't do,
teach"). Despite this limitation, some critics *are* memorable
writers in their own right (see Harold Bloom or Frank Kermode). But I
suspect "Peter Stewart" is not in this league as a critic and is ...
alas ... very forgettable in his literary opinions.

Evanescent indeed.

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 aug 2007 23:46:09

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185981121.702293.42930@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, unlike you I will never make obsessive searches of the internet to
come
up with stupid misidentifications, as you did when demanding to know
personal details while absurdly refusing to accept that I am

Peter Stewart

Well, seeing that several of us have to put up with your supposely
high-falutin' abuse on a constant basis, it *would* be nice to be able
to read some of your claimed literary criticism.

The word "supposedly" is meant to indicate that someone apart from the
writer has actually supposed a thing - not to mask your own opinions as
having an objective basis. What you miscall "abuse" is specific criticism,
that never gets specifically answered. This response of yours to a pointed
criticism of your public behaviour is yet another evasion.

Of course, it should always be remembered that critics are usually those
who cannot write good novels or poetry of their own (the old "those who
can't do, teach").

And those who can write criticism tend to write criticism. Some novelists do
this, some don't. Some critics try to write novels, some succeed & some
fail. Some don't wish to try. I haven't even read a novel for some years - I
can't recall the last one. Literary criticism is not all about fiction.
Poetry is far more interesting to me, but again I don't attempt to write it
and never have done since schooldays. Once again, you are making &
projecting your own suppositions, that are quite inaccurate.

Despite this limitation, some critics *are* memorable
writers in their own right (see Harold Bloom or Frank Kermode). But I
suspect "Peter Stewart" is not in this league as a critic and is ...
alas ... very forgettable in his literary opinions.

Evanescent indeed.

But you admittedly haven't read my work, so your own criticism is not
exactly sane much less intelligent. You are apparently borrowing and trying
to twist a word from an essay of mine on some books of Germaine Greer, that
you found was available online when last getting hysterical about the
matter, so why not start with reading that instead of complaining?

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 aug 2007 16:02:56

But you admittedly haven't read my work, so your own criticism is not
exactly sane much less intelligent. You are apparently borrowing and trying
to twist a word from an essay of mine on some books of Germaine Greer, that
you found was available online when last getting hysterical about the
matter, so why not start with reading that instead of complaining?

A list of your productions would be nice (I don't have access to the
G. Greer thing, and ... unfortunately ... it sounds dull).

To form an opinion one would want to read quite a few pieces. Have
you even written "quite a few pieces"?

We would even be willing to receive a list of articles published under
a pseudonym (or--shock and horror--under your *real* name?).

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 aug 2007 23:30:09

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186412576.977040.166070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
But you admittedly haven't read my work, so your own criticism is not
exactly sane much less intelligent. You are apparently borrowing and
trying
to twist a word from an essay of mine on some books of Germaine Greer,
that
you found was available online when last getting hysterical about the
matter, so why not start with reading that instead of complaining?

A list of your productions would be nice (I don't have access to the
G. Greer thing, and ... unfortunately ... it sounds dull).

A falsehood, there is public access as you discovered before. Perhaps you
mean you don't have _free_ access - as might be expected for the copyright
publication of contemporary writing.

To form an opinion one would want to read quite a few pieces. Have
you even written "quite a few pieces"?

What a very foolish question. Do you suppose that a journal of the fame &
prestige of _Meanjin_ might choose random pedestrians off the nearby streets
to commission review essays? Just because you don't know of something
doesn't mean it can be made it into or insinuated as whatever you wish to
misrepresent. This is the Richardson fallacy, a warped and stupid approach
to any question.

We would even be willing to receive a list of articles published under
a pseudonym (or--shock and horror--under your *real* name?).

For the umpteenth time, anyone's activities in other fields of endeavour are
quite irrelevant here. It would make as much sense to say that people you
have insulted have a need and right to view shelves that you have stacked in
your library, or to inspect your filing or whatever else you do in the
course of your employment.

Get over it. Here the interest is in medieval genealogy. Not in me, and not
in you.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 aug 2007 23:45:12

A falsehood, there is public access as you discovered before. Perhaps you
mean you don't have _free_ access - as might be expected for the copyright
publication of contemporary writing.

No, access was free, but one had to give an email address. I had no
wish to be inundated with tons of spam merely to read your essay on a
horrendously dull topic.


What a very foolish question. Do you suppose that a journal of the fame &
prestige of _Meanjin_ might choose random pedestrians off the nearby streets

I have never heard of _Meanjin_, but the sound of the title is not
very pleasing to the ear (not to mention meaningless).

to commission review essays? Just because you don't know of something
doesn't mean it can be made it into or insinuated as whatever you wish to
misrepresent. This is the Richardson fallacy, a warped and stupid approach
to any question.

We would even be willing to receive a list of articles published under
a pseudonym (or--shock and horror--under your *real* name?).

For the umpteenth time, anyone's activities in other fields of endeavour are
quite irrelevant here. It would make as much sense to say that people you
have insulted have a need and right to view shelves that you have stacked in
your library, or to inspect your filing or whatever else you do in the
course of your employment.

Get over it. Here the interest is in medieval genealogy. Not in me, and not
in you.

Peter Stewart

Your refusal to supply even a few bibliographical references (say two
or three) for your writings says quite a lot (and all we need to know).

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 aug 2007 00:45:50

On Aug 7, 8:45 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A falsehood, there is public access as you discovered before.
Perhaps you mean you don't have _free_ access - as might be
expected for the copyright publication of contemporary writing.

No, access was free, but one had to give an email address. I had no
wish to be inundated with tons of spam merely to read your essay on
a horrendously dull topic.

Another falsehood - access was not free, and you complained at the
time about this.

What a very foolish question. Do you suppose that a journal of the > > fame & prestige of _Meanjin_ might choose random pedestrians off
the nearby streets

I have never heard of _Meanjin_, but the sound of the title is not
very pleasing to the ear (not to mention meaningless).

Becasue you don't know the meaning it must be meaningless - and this
isn't twisted and stupid? You can learn the actual meaning at
http://www.meanjin.unimelb.edu.au/about/.

to commission review essays? Just because you don't know of
something doesn't mean it can be made it into or insinuated as
whatever you wish to misrepresent. This is the Richardson
fallacy, a warped and stupid approach to any question.

We would even be willing to receive a list of articles published
under a pseudonym (or--shock and horror--under your *real*
name?).

For the umpteenth time, anyone's activities in other fields of
endeavour are quite irrelevant here. It would make as much
sense to say that people you have insulted have a need and
right to view shelves that you have stacked in your library, or to
inspect your filing or whatever else you do in the course of your
employment.

Get over it. Here the interest is in medieval genealogy. Not in me,
and not
in you.

Peter Stewart

Your refusal to supply even a few bibliographical references (say two
or three) for your writings says quite a lot (and all we need to know).-

Yes, it tells you only that I will not play at such a foolish game.
Even you are not quite silly enough to post photos or other evidences
of your work outside the newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»